Sunday, September 27, 2009

Rolling Up the Red Carpet on the Emmys

I'm not a TV addict (House, Monk, Medium and a few others are enough for Cat), but I enjoy watching the Emmy Awards every year. It's, well . . . something different. In the moments leading up to the show this year, however, I was channel surfing and came across a program on hunger in the third world.

Before me were images of small children sitting in homes made of plywood, cardboard, or corrugated tin. They wore dirty T-shirts or nothing at all. Many were cared for by older siblings since their parents were deceased. There were no schools or hospitals, and clean water and sanitation were absent. I could go on, but you get the picture. This is the way billions in the third world live, if you can call it "living."

I turned back to CBS in time to see the celebs strutting up the red carpet, bejewelled and dressed in gowns costing a hundred grand after emerging from the stretch limos. The contrast with the show on world hunger hit me in the gut.

Ironically, actors and actresses are fairly liberal and do more than most in championing the cause of the needy. Brad Pitt's work in New Orleans post-Katrina has been exemplary, and he's not alone in his philanthropic efforts. But I decided not to watch the Emmys last Sunday night, not because there was enything inherently evil about the broadcast, but because we tend to get caught up in the glitz and the glamour. We sympathize with the plight of the third world, but we just don't think about it that much. Out of sight, out of mind. I'm as guilty as anybody.

So I passed on the telecast for personal reasons. It was a way of making my subconscious a bit uncomfortable, a way of making my subconscious bubble to the surface and sit in a dark little hut for a few hours. It was my way to keep remembering after the show on hunger was over.

No comments:

Post a Comment